RSS Feed
How About the Human Case?
In too many discussions of gay marriage, its opponents' default position seems to be that marriage is an "institution" sorely needing defense. A rather soul-less word, institution, especially in this case. Yet I'm willing to buy that label if we imagine marriage as an alliance whose principal benefits lie in what it confers financially and politically on the partners. Two powerful families unite to preserve their worldly influence and fortune. Don't kings always marry other kings' daughters?
But, alas, most of us are not royalty and instead live in a culture awash in popular music and movies that actually encourage us to fall in love--and then act on that love in the ultimate way, by pledging to unite together for life. Speaking as one who entered some time ago into a happy state of matrimony, I'd not want to deny anyone who sincerely desires the opportunity to experience this great, flesh-and-blood form of joy.
Can a religious case be made for it? Well--and here's the key thing--yes, if you judge by the fact that there are clergy very willing to marry gay couples. They are not terribly difficult to find, certainly where Unitarian-Universalist, Reform Jewish and Reconstructionist Jewish congregations (among others) exist. What's more, if the marriage takes place in Massachusetts or Connecticut, then the couple gets official, secular sanction, too.
I'm reminded of an old joke--a religious one--I once heard in the South. Says one churchgoer: "Do you believe in infant baptism?" Says the other: "Believe in it?! Why, I've seen it done!"
By
Gustav Niebuhr
|
December 9, 2008; 12:41 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: We Must Separate From Heresy |
Next: Yes, If You Believe in a Loving, Inclusive God
Posted by: Farnaz2 | December 10, 2008 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
edbyronadams wrote:
"In California, gay people can fall in love and find a state contract that confers all the rights a married couple enjoy and the state has the power to confer by getting a domestic partnership contract."
That is a common misconception. It is not true!
Domestic partnerships confer about 300 rights and privileges on the happy couple. Marriage confers over 1200 rights and privileges.
300 DOES NOT EQUAL 1200!
Posted by: lavdad2 | December 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In my view, the "separate but equal" argument in Brown v. Board was fundamentally flawed because it manifestly was not equal. Furthermore, equating skin color differences with sexual attraction is a non starter. Darker skin is a dominant genetic trait but homosexuality, while it has some genetic predisposition, is not nearly as genetically deterministic as skin color.
Posted by: edbyronadams | December 10, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Banal arguement.
Posted by: bruce18 | December 10, 2008 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
edbyronadams says:
"In California, gay people can fall in love and find a state contract that confers all the rights a married couple enjoy and the state has the power to confer by getting a domestic partnership contract. They just do not have the right to the word "marriage" which has meant a heterosexual union as far back as anyone can remember. The people are not willing to change the definition."
Am I the only one that sees that thinking like this brought us 'Colored Only' drinking fountains? Separate but equal is not just unconstitutional, it's plain wrong.
Posted by: Gavin082 | December 10, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In California, gay people can fall in love and find a state contract that confers all the rights a married couple enjoy and the state has the power to confer by getting a domestic partnership contract. They just do not have the right to the word "marriage" which has meant a heterosexual union as far back as anyone can remember. The people are not willing to change the definition.
Rights either arise from God, the "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration, or from a consensus of the people, often with their view of God forming part of their opinion. The majority in a very liberal state say that same sex couples do not have the right to the word.
Posted by: edbyronadams | December 10, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good post; quite rational. Therefore, the religious right will hate it.
The posed ? has one distinct flaw: it talks only about the christian view - aren't there other groups, just as big, if not larger that might weigh in differently?
Isn't there more important things to talk about/deal with anyways?
Posted by: Michael_A1 | December 10, 2008 9:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
You have answered the question as posed, since we must assume that clergy conducting such marriages are religious.
My question has always been why bother with the discussion. The right to marry is a right of citizenship. Gay persons who are citizens have the right to marry, therefore.
They need the equivalent of an MLK. Time for sit-ins, boycotts, demonstrations, etc.